Their reasons for not believing in no God usually revolve around theories or other similar experiences. Some may use the theory of Evolution to disprove God's existence, but Evolution itself is not to be taken as fact as there are many missing transitional fossils, proving that there is evidence of absence, (not absence of evidence, which is a logical fallacy). Others may use emotional reasoning such as "we prayed for our beloved relative to be able to defeat cancer, and our prayer was not answered." In this case, they assert that if God existed, then the prayer would be answered, but they don't realize that God can choose not to answer a prayer. Last, but not least, they believe in chance when it comes to how the universe was formed. There is much evidence of how complex this universe is, such as how much data DNA can store, and how intricately circular cellular respiration and plant respiration systems are. Again, this uses the evidence of absence regarding chance (evidence of absence, not the absence of evidence, which is a logical fallacy)

I am a Christian, and I personally believe that the difference between the Christian faith and other faiths is that our faith is based on evidence, whereas other faiths have little to none.

Atheists do not have definitive and empirical evidence that God is not real.

Therefore they have faith that God is not real.

Anyone who denies this logic is most likely extremely biased. I would go as far as to say that it is a cliche for Atheists to say their belief is not based on faith, especially since they consider what Theists have as faith.

They have faith in the existence if no god as much as theists have faith in their existence of a god. There is no definitive proof to support either argument; no one has disproved God's existence yet. If they had, theists would have died out long ago. In fact, some may believe that theists have more evidence to support their faith that atheists have; historical documents, for example the Bible*, can be considered as evidence as well as modern scientific theories.

*Here I am not saying that all the Bible is right, but that it points to the existence of a god that has survived the test of time. Also, the Bible, as well as many non-Christian historians, such as Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus all chronicled the life of a miraculous man named Jesus. To say he never existed is stupid and ignoring the facts and to say he was a mere man is ridiculous. People DIED for their faith in him and continue to do so today; would they die for him if he was any ordinary man??

They can't prove there's no God yet trust this is the case. If they simply did not take an issue one way or the other they would be agnostic, not atheist. A (no) + gnostic (knowledge), i.E. No knowledge of God, as opposed to A (no) + theist (God) or a strong declaration God does not exist.

If they simply claimed they weren't sure one way or the other, and took the default position of not knowing they would be agnostic, the middle ground or default position. However, atheism is an adamant claim that God does not and cannot exist, a claim as definitive as the theist's that God does exist. A theist trusts that God exists, an atheist trusts that God doesn't exist, and an agnostic doesn't care or isn't sure.

Thus, both theistic and atheistic sides make extraordinary claims which require extraordinary proof; the theist to prove God's existence, and the atheist to prove God's non-existence. Only the agnostic makes no clear declaration, does not trust one side or the other to be true, and needs no burden of proof. Nonetheless, the agnostic's stance is one of ignorance from not investigating the issue or drawing a conclusion one way or the other, and is essentially a dodge of the issue altogether; which doesn't really solve or address anything.

Everything is faith one way or another

Indeed it is true that we shouldn't believe in something unless we have reason or evidence to believe in it.. But it is also true that we shouldn't DISBELIEVE in something unless we have reason or evidence to disbelieve in it. As it is, there is not evidence that disproves the existence of God, so to proudly and arrogantly state that there is no God is a great fallacy, for who can be certain? There is, however, some evidence that points to the existence of God if you've been paying attention to scientific studies that have recently been coming out. It can be argued that the belief in God is like believing in a floating toaster orbiting Mars in space.. But to say that it truly isn't there is a fallacy.. The odds of it being there are very low, and they say the same for God (but that seems to be a bit of an exaggeration) but inevitably, in the end, it can't be said for certain whether the toast is or isn't there, and in the end, people will believe whatever they want to believe, and whatever they believe is based on faith.. No matter how much evidence supports or contradicts their belief.

Etymology says it all

Theism is the existence of a deity. A deity is a God. Gods are followed through the teachings, doctrines and traditions of a religion. An A-THEIST is one who lacks belief in a deity or God or religion. It is clear that an Atheist would not exist without the existence of a Theist. Duality only exists in pairs and not in singular forms. As an example, if people were all androgynous, then there would be no male and female sex, but instead the androgynous individual. Another is that of the time of day known as twilight, which exists between day and night. It is neither, but in between, or in the previous example, both. If humans never developed belief in theism, there would be no atheists. Instead we would all have developed a form of non-theism. (somewhat of a semantic answer)

They're sure that there's no God

Most atheists believe in Evolution and Evolution has so many missed links and everything happened from nothing and by chance. So one can easily say that Atheists believe in something with missing links and lacking strong evidence is based on faith. Most atheists believe the The big bang happened and there is certainly no evidence supporting the big bang, yet they have faith that it actually happened. They have a strong belief that God doesn't exist.

It takes more faith to believe (with less evidence) the entire Atheist package than to believe in God.

1. Negative proof is difficult at best.2. There is a great deal of evidence for God's presence in His world.3. We all have to choose which sources / viewpoints to trust as we cannot examine every position thoroughly.4. Many Atheists have replaced the concept of god with "Science as religion" as the explanation for all things

Atheists claim they reject belief based on evidence

But by that standard they must have evidence for their disbelief too! If they want to have a coherent philosophy they must furnish evidence for their statement, or they can reject their evidentialist point of view on these matters and try to adapt other philosophies to fit their point of view, but their world-view is a massive contradiction otherwise.

I would have to say yes.

Any claim about god (including claiming no claim) is a faith based position. The sooner non-theists admit this, the sooner a more fruitful discussion can open up. There is the faith based on rationalism and empiricism (scientific method), naturalism (nature is all there is) and materialism (the view that everything can be reduced to matter and energy).

How can you have faith in NOT having a belief? Faith is belief in things for which there is no evidence- atheism does not have a common belief. It is just the rejection of the theist's claim that a god exists as being without evidence. This is like trying to claim that adults not believing in Santa or the tooth fairy is based on faith.

I'm tired of hearing this. Over and over religious people, particularly Christians, keep saying atheism is a position without evidence and, therefore, is just as irrational as their beliefs. No, that's absolutely false. Faith is taking a position, usually religiously, based on spiritual apprehension rather than evidence/proof. Atheism is exactly not that. The reason there's no verifiable proof against God's existence is because God has been defined with unfalsifiable attributes. He's immaterial, outside the Universe, causeless, uses divine intervention indirectly, and the standard of all good. There's evil: God's plan. Where is he: he's immaterial. He doesn't answer prayers: God's plan. What's God's plan: we can't know. Why won't he tell us: God's plan. I don't think religious people realize how empty these statements are. Here's a challenge for any religious person here: how can we disprove God? On a hypothetical level, what sort of evidence would it take to prove God doesn't exist? If that hypothetical evidence cannot exist, even as a construct of the mind, then our conversation ends here. On a grammatical note, neither "atheism" nor "faith" should be capitalized in the context of the question... "atheists" is not a proper adjective and "faith" is not being used as a proper noun.

It's pretty ridiculous to say that an Atheist has faith. Faith is the reason they don't believe in a God. Faith is not evidence, and Atheists believe in evidence. There is none for God, and that is why Atheists don't believe. It is as simple as that. The only reason people try to say that Atheists base their belief in no God on Faith is because religious people try to use that as a debate.. Let me tell you that it's not working. Keep trying.

As an atheist, I can say this without bias.

We don't base or belief in faith. That's like saying people who don't smoke are addicted to not smoking, and people who don't collect things have a habit of not collecting things. We base or "belief" (I say with quotation marks because calling atheism a belief is also untrue) on cold hard facts. I'm not trying to say I'm against religious people, I have a lot of religious friends. What I'm trying to say is- stop attempting to classify atheism as a religion, because it's not.

No, The belief is not based on faith, but rather the scientific method

(for the most part). Faith is defined by Merriam-Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," unlike theists, scientific atheists base their beliefs on confirmable (and at least logical) scientific observations and evidence. While some may claim that our universe and existence is proof of a god there is no evidence for proof for or against a god, but as our understanding of science deepens the need for a grand designer becomes less necessary and the design of the world can be ascribed to physics and probability. I think the major misunderstanding is the difference between faith and evidence. Here is a watered down example of the scientific method, I just turned around in my chair to see if there was a ninja there, I saw no traces of a ninja so I can logically assume there was not one in the room. While there may have been one, it is most likely that my observations and my understanding of how ninjas operate lead me to believe the most likely conclusion.

To Conclude, there is no need for faith in atheist thinking because of the evidence that exists, and though the facts may change it is in the nature of science not to speculate on non-existent evidence, only to form laws based on the information available.

Of course not

Atheist don't base their belief in god by faith. Faith is basically hope and everyone is born with it. Atheists are people who don't believe in god, not faith. We can have faith and not believe in god and we can also wish for miracles and not pray. It is human nature to put your faith into something.

No. Atheist do not.

It's a bit contradictory to say Atheist base belief on Faith. Most Atheist are imperialistic with data. Meaning something must be verified by being tested by multiple parties multiple times and in no way disproved to be accepted, and once disproved a knew answer seeked and tested until found to be disprovable.

I personally acknowledge that God is a metaphor for our consciousness and ability to question our perceptions. I also personally acknowledge that some things just don't have an answer for a species as young as ours, though I do not blame it on an all powerful, omnipotent entity. I simply leave things unanswered until answerable. Meaning I don't blame God for unanswerable questions, I accept that there still in no answer available for a question that has been asked.

No, you idiots

The whole point of atheism is to believe in evidence based ideas, such as evolution. Now there is no absolute way to disprove there being a god, but there is nothing left for us to really disprove, the earth isn't the centre of the universe, we evolved, the earth is older than 6000 years. Anything that can be disproved using methods currently available to us has been disproved, so it's not based on faith but on evidence.

Theism is the existence of a deity. A deity is a God. Gods are followed through the teachings, doctrines and traditions of a religion. An A-THEIST is one who lacks belief in a deity or God or religion. It is clear that an Atheist would not exist without the existence of a Theist. Duality only exists in pairs and not in singular forms. As an example, if people were all androgynous, then there would be no male and female sex, but instead the androgynous individual. Another is that of the time of day known as twilight, which exists between day and night. It is neither, but in between, or in the previous example, both. If humans never developed belief in theism, there would be no atheists. Instead we would all have developed a form of non-theism. (somewhat of a semantic answer)

There's a subtle difference in believing that there is no god versus simply not believing in a god. The former requires some element of faith, though arguably not as much as defining a specific god and dedicating your entire life to it. The latter requires no faith whatsoever. Both fall under the umbrella of Atheism.

Actually, I believe atheism IS the belief in no God. Those who do not believe in a God are what I call "agnostic atheists", ie those who consider God as merely unsupported by evidence. Of course, many agnostic atheists claim they are atheists, but I think that "complete" atheists (as opposed to agnostic ones) do have faith there is no God. Still, I agree with you that they can both be loosely placed under the umbrella of atheism.

You're looking at it as agnostic atheist vs atheist when you really mean agnostic atheist vs gnostic atheist. Neither one is more atheist than the other. They just make different assertions on the "knowability" of deities. That is gnostic atheists assert that they know that gods do not exist, while agnostic atheists make no such assertion.

To move away from the semantics: yes, gnostic atheism does contain an element of faith. But I think it's misleading to equate it to the faith of a theist. Aside from taking a more stubborn stance in debates, the life of a gnostic atheist doesn't differ in any significant way from an agnostic atheist. Their faith is of no real consequence. Theists, on the other hand, make faith a significant factor in their decision-making process and may dedicate hours in prayer to a deity. It's like a murderer pointing out that someone who illegally downloaded a song has also committed a crime, failing to acknowledge the vast difference in severity. (Disclaimer: I am not equating theists with murderers. They're good people.)